| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nicholls: Yes, and it would mean that the system was breaking down. This picks up on the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who suggested that, because the law had been broken, abolition
should automatically take place. There is no doubt--it is evident to anyone who has visited a fur farm--that if the law were properly observed and enforced, as it should be, it would be quite impossible in law for hell-holes to exist. If the present law were observed, I see no reason why barbaric practices should be able to take place. The Minister may wish to address that matter. If it is the Government's contention that the present law is not adequate to deal with some of the outrages about which we have heard, one wonders why it has taken so long for action to take place.
What are the arguments for the proposition that mink cannot be farmed humanely? There are two, and the hon. Member for Garston, to her credit, addressed both. First, it is said that mink are essentially wild. Secondly, it is said that mink are aquatic animals, condemned to live out their existence in a water-free environment. I will address both, briefly. Clearly, mink were once wild--indeed, all farm animals were at one time wild. However, the proposition is whether they can be considered wild now.
There is some authority for that view, albeit from the continent--although I see nothing particularly wrong with that. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is twitching a bit, but this is not a day for him and me to share our European prejudices.
In his paper, "Re the zoological status of farmed fur animals", written in June 1993, Professor Knud Erik Heller of the Institute of Population Biology in Denmark said:
Perhaps most interesting of all was the report by Professor P.R. Wiepkema who, in a submission to the Dutch Government at their request on the implications of fur farming, said:
Mr. Hogg:
My hon. Friend has quoted studies undertaken in Denmark and Holland. Does he accept that, for many years, the Governments and Parliaments of Denmark and Holland have shown themselves to be as sensitive to animal welfare issues as has this House?
Mr. Nicholls:
That is my understanding.
It is interesting and informative to refer to academic studies. There is nothing wrong with being a campaigning organisation, be it the Farm Animal Welfare Council or any other, but when we are trying to reach a conclusion it is more relevant to consider academic evidence on both sides of the argument than simply to say that a campaigning organisation, with great sincerity, happens to believe that something is wrong.
Maria Eagle:
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech, which inclines me to think that the official Opposition may oppose the Bill. Do they intend to do so?
Mr. Nicholls:
The official Opposition will not oppose the Bill, but we believe that fundamental questions must be answered before the Bill is passed. I am presenting the arguments in this way because, given the rational way in which the hon. Lady has introduced the measure--in contrast to some of those who purportedly support her--I believe that the assertion that there is a case to be made will appeal to her. Ultimately, whether the Bill is successful will depend on Ministers' attitude, so I believe that Ministers must answer some questions.
Mr. Swayne:
My hon. Friend will appreciate that some of us are sceptical of academic studies, as we were of a certain Bateson report. Does he accept that it is incredible to expect a chicken or cow to escape and live in the wild as mink populations do? We now have feral mink populations in the countryside.
Mr. Nicholls:
My hon. Friend may have more experience than I do about what happens to cows and chickens when they escape into the wild; I do not know. Certainly if their wings and beaks--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. I thank the hon. Member for returning to address the Chair.
Mr. Nicholls:
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Obviously, some animals are better equipped for returning to the wild than others, but today we are discussing mink, not whether we should release or prevent the husbandry of chickens and cows.
Academic evidence exists that casts doubt on whether mink are wild. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) approaches academic evidence with scepticism, as he should, but academic evidence cannot simply be dismissed if it does not fit one's predetermined views.
Mr. Dismore:
The hon. Gentleman quoted some of the academic ideas that support the keeping of mink. Perhaps he would comment on whether there has been academic research on killing methods. The Library research paper suggests that there is no humane method of killing mink. It deals with gassing and the possible stresses and traumas that that causes mink. It deals with the possibility of drugging the animals before they are killed and refers to the significant stresses, difficulties and cruelty that that may cause. Have any of the academic studies addressed the final solution for mink--the way that they are killed and the cruelty involved?
Mr. Nicholls:
The hon. Gentleman has obviously reached a conclusion. He is entitled to do so, and
I believe that the hon. Gentleman comes from an urban background. If he thinks that the killing of animals, for food or fur, is an attractive process whereby animals can be laid to sleep in a way that is completely undistressing for them or for those who must take part in that process, he should visit a slaughterhouse.
Mr. Dismore:
I grew up in east Yorkshire, which is not known for its great urban sprawl; it is the heart of farming country. However, may I quote to the hon. Gentleman the Library research paper on the need to kill the animals without spoiling their pelts?
Mr. Nicholls:
I give way to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).
Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South):
On the hon. Gentleman's many visits to mink farms, did he witness the mink being killed? If so, I should be grateful if he would describe to the House what he saw.
Mr. Nicholls:
I have visited only one mink farm and I was not there when the mink were harvested, so I cannot give any information about that. However, the fact that I made that one visit probably distinguishes me from many of the hon. Members who are now seeking to intervene.
Mr. Ian Cawsey (Brigg and Goole):
It does the hon. Gentleman credit that he visited a farm. Many of his arguments are about whether mink are domesticated, and he seems to have concluded, "mink--not as bad as you think." He says that academic research might back up that claim, but does he accept that when mink escaped--and there were mink escapes last year--there was not much evidence that they had become domesticated? I believe that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) would agree that when mink returned to the wild, they showed all their natural wild tendencies.
Mr. Nicholls:
They certainly showed some of their vicious tendencies, because that is in their nature. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman goes ferreting very
I said that the two arguments that are advanced for the proposition that mink cannot be farmed humanely are first, that they are wild--I have pointed out such evidence as is available to support that proposition--and secondly, that they are aquatic and that therefore they cannot be suitable to be held in captivity.
In his report, Professor Wiepkema said, on the question whether mink should be provided with swimming water:
"From a scientific point of view, fur animals that have been domesticated for more than ten generations must be considered as so far genetically removed from their ancestors that they have to be treated as fully domesticated species."
In a paper entitled "Production conditions, behaviour and welfare of farmed mink", Dr. Steffen Hanson of the National Institute of Animal Science in Denmark says:
"Significant behaviour and physiological changes achieved through domestication therefore make it unreasonable to make direct comparisons between farmed mink and their relations in the wild, when considering their welfare."
I note in passing the reference to 10 generations. I understand that, in this country, we are into the80th generation.
"Mink have unmistakably gone down the path of domestication. They display the majority of characteristics of domestic animals: they are not shy. They are inquisitive, sometimes even hand tame, and they grow and reproduce without any great problems."
In summary, he says:
"Mink kept on the farm can be considered as domestic animals."
I have handled mink and ferrets, and I must tell the hon. Member for Garston that she would be safer handling mink than ferrets.
"This means that killing methods have be employed other than those accepted as humane for food animals such as cattle and sheep."
Mr. Nicholls:
If the hon. Gentleman takes the view that it is impossible to kill mink humanely, he will support the Bill. However, he should ask the Minister why, if it is impossible to kill mink humanely, the process is taking place at the moment.
"In close connection with their supposed wild nature it is often postulated that farmed mink need swimming water. It should be apparent from point 2.2 that feral mink intensively use the waterside (and the water) as a foraging area, but also may leave it at their own initiative. This opportunistic foraging behaviour leads me to the conclusion that swimming and fishing water is agreeable to the mink, but presumably not crucial. There are also no indications from the limited research done so far that mink, outside of their foraging behaviour, need water."
He summarises:
"On the farm swimming or fishing water is not an absolute necessity for mink."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |